Uttarakhand High Court
Daleep Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 194 of 2024
With
IA No.2 of 2024 for Bail Application
Daleep Kumar ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Suhail Ahmed Siddiqui and Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi,
Advocates for the revisionist.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 27.03.2018,
passed in Criminal Case No.244 of 2013,
State vs. Jeet Singh and another, by the
court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By
it, the revisionist has been convicted under
Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, and sentenced
(a) Under Section 420 IPC, to undergo
2 years' rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
(b) Under Section 467 IPC, to undergo
2 years' rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
(c) Under Section 468 IPC, to undergo
2 years' rigorous imprisonment with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of 2 months.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 14.08.2023,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2018,
Jeet Singh and another vs. State, by the
court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ("the
appeal"). By it, the order passed in the case
was affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the conviction is bad under Section 467 IPC because
the allegations are with regard to forgery of a caste
certificate, which, it is argued, does not fall within the
definition of valuable security, for which the provision of
Section 467 IPC are attracted.
4. Having heard, this Court is of the view that this
matter requires deliberations.
5. Admit.
6. LCR has already been summoned.
7. List for final hearing on 18.07.2024.
Heard on Bail Application No. 2 of 2024
8. The challenge in this revision is made to the
conviction and sentence of the revisionist recorded in
Criminal Case No.244 of 2013, State vs. Jeet Singh and
another, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted under Sections 420, 467,
468 IPC, and sentenced, as mentioned hereinabove, as well
as, judgment and order dated 14.08.2023, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2018, Jeet Singh and another vs.
State, by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ("the appeal"). By it,
the order passed in the case was affirmed.
9. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist
that the allegations of making false caste certificate do not
attract the provisions of Section 467 IPC.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that the revisionist has been on bail throughout
during trial or in appeal.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be allowed.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. The execution of impugned sentence shall remain
suspended until the conclusion of the revision.
14. Let the revisionist-Daleep Kumar be released on
bail, during the pendency of this revision, on his executing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each
of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned and also subject to the deposition of fine.
(Ravindra Maithani,J.)
01.05.2024
Ravi
